6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[lynn cates]

attire

Hello Rivkah. It seems that certain items of clothing are essential for prostitutes in certain cultures. So, in Russia, according to Fyodor Dostoevski, the well dressed prostitute MUST carry a parasol.

So, likewise, in late 19th c British culture, it seems one must have a bonnet to "look the part."

I would discuss US contemporary culture, but I fear it would bore you.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

But then there are the reports that MJK rarely wore a hat...

Cheers

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Rivkah. It seems that certain items of clothing are essential for prostitutes in certain cultures.

In general, yes, prostitutes must have some way of signalling availability to people who are looking, without actually wearing a sign that says "woman for rent," or something else that could get them arrested (although, I'm not sure what was and wasn't legal, vis a vis selling sex, in Victorian London).

So, likewise, in late 19th c British culture, it seems one must have a bonnet to "look the part."

Something, but maybe not a bonnet:

But then there are the reports that MJK rarely wore a hat...

BTW, what, to a Brit, is the difference between a hat and a bonnet?

In the US, a hat, when it's a woman's hat, was chiefly a fashion statement, and the closest thing it had to a utilitarian purpose was to round off a hairstyle. A bonnet was a head covering a woman wore to keep the sun out of her eyes and off her face, and to keep her hair from blowing around on a windy day. It had the same utilitarian purpose as a kerchief or scarf, plus a brim to keep off the sun. They had neck flaps sometimes too, to keep the sun off one's neck. Women who worked outdoors wore them, although by the 20th century, women who worked outdoors had pretty much given up bonnets in favor of wearing men's hats instead. A woman in certain areas and times didn't have to work outdoors, though, because women from rural areas sometimes ended up spending time exposed to the sun just traveling.

In times and places where bonnets were common, women who wore them took them off indoors. Women's fashion hats were worn indoors, though, because they were part of the hairstyle.

People put sunbonnets on babies, including boy babies, until they could walk, and the last gasp of them in the US was probably on babies through the 1960s. I have a photo of myself wearing a particularly ridiculous-looking one with what must be a six-inch, starched brim.

Yes, I know you also call the hood of a car the "bonnet."

[Paddy]

Hats or Bonnets

As a Cockney myself....I was always thought that a bonnet was usually fastened under the chin with a Ribbon or something similar. Could be winter one or summer one. They were very popular in Victorian times. A hat was more a general term for head gear for man or woman.
A bonnet would be classed as a hat.

As for would hats signal to a punter? I dont think so. Basically she hung around a man would approach and ask if she was doing the business. It could even have been in the eye contact from her and a " Hello deary fancy a nice time?"

I should think the men would think all women hanging around were fair Game.
It was very basic then, still is I think !

I think she just thought she looked good in her jolly bonnet and was saying dont worry Ill get some money and be back !

Pat Marshall................ :

[Paddy]

Liz Stride

However Liz Stride worked and also and had a bit of cash, so probably did pick men up in pubs. But maybe for relationships. It was her old stomping ground and she had worked for the jewish people. She did turn someone down by saying "no not tonight" that night so it could be one of three things:

She was waiting for someone
or She didnt like the chap
or She was after a better punter

I do wonder why she was hanging around the street on her own at some points though or waiting outside the International working club.

Pat...............

[RivkahChaya]

As a Cockney myself....I was always thought that a bonnet was usually fastened under the chin with a Ribbon or something similar. Could be winter one or summer one.

It's true that anything that would be called a bonnet over here would be fastened under the chin, but then, anything you were working in, or wearing on a windy day, would be fastened under the chin. Women's headwear that one would call a hat would definitely not be fastened under the chin.

There may be rules I don't know about regarding bonnets at certain times of day, or for outdoor functions (don't mention "Easter Parade"-- it just has to rhyme with "upon it").

As for would hats signal to a punter? I dont think so. Basically she hung around a man would approach and ask if she was doing the business. It could even have been in the eye contact from her and a " Hello deary fancy a nice time?"

There was a time when being out in the evening without an escort (ie, a man) signaled that you were working, which is why in old movies, you here women complaining about being stuck home because they haven't got a date. Apparently just pointing out to a jury that a woman was out without an escort was even a defense against a rape charge.

I have it on good authority that the whole "butch/femme" thing with lesbians came about, because one of the women in a couple would dress and generally try to look like a man, because by looking like a man/woman couple, they were communicating that neither of them was available, or gawd forbid, "consenting" to anyone who walked by, just by the act of being out alone.

In fact, now that I think about it, I remember when I was little, and adult women talked about going out "alone," when it was actually two or three women going to do something together, and I didn't understand what they meant by "alone."

[lynn cates]

Ergo . . .

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"But then there are the reports that MJK rarely wore a hat..."

Ah ha!

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Mary Kelly rarely wore a hat, so it is reported, but she did on the eve of the 8th, how else would Mrs Prater have known , for the item in question was not left until that very day by Mrs Harvey, who is reported to have remarked ''I am leaving my bonnet'' to the deceased .
One could assume that she was out to impress that night, she was seen with a well dressed man between 9-11 and is it not a coincidence that just a few hours later she was seen with a man of smart attire,?[ Mr A].
Regards Richard.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Since its clear by the physical evidence in the Stride murder case that she wasnt ripped or "prepped" for ripping, nor did she have her throat cut twice, the unknown man responsible for the deaths preceding hers should not be held responsible for this murder. Without more evidence to link the killer to the killer of the first 2...not the victimology,...she is, albeit..in my own dramatic words, being held hostage within a Canonical Group.

You really should read what I write, and not come back with what you think I wrote. I said he should be held on suspicion all the while there is no evidence against any other individual. What can possibly be so wrong with that?

Which makes her life an open book for all the Ripper students that want to peek in and critique her morals, her work ethic, or whathaveyou.

What? I mean, what??

If the ripper killed Stride, it only suggests (not even directly implies) that he may have believed she was standing alone by that club after midnight for immoral purposes. He may have been right or wrong. Or he may have been like the Yorkshire Ripper, who figured any woman out alone deserved whatever she got. If someone else killed Stride, it still wouldn't make it wrong that she was described as an unfortunate, like the other victims. Whoever killed her judged that she had somehow deserved her fate.

This thread wonders about a woman dressed nicely with accoutrements more in keeping with a social plan for the evening than a "work for doss" plan.... yet because she is lumped in with these other women we get to make all kinds of assumptions as to why she was there. Including the one that irks me the most,..that despite any evidence validating the claim, she was soliciting at the time.

Unbelievable. In trying to elevate Stride above 'these other women' you merely discard them as so much rubbish.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

OK. Took me a while, but those are some of Peter Sutcliffe's victims... and it seems like the ones you pictured are victims who were without a doubt never prostitutes, even though some of Sutcliffe's victim were...

...BTW, it irks me to no end whatsoever, that an old newspaper article describes one of the non-prostitute victims as an "innocent victim."

Hi Rivkah,

I was going to make the same point before I saw the posts relating to Sutcliffe. Even as late as the 70s, we still had the press making this kind of heinous moral distinction between the women who got themselves killed in the course of their "profession" and the "innocent victims" of an opportunist murderer.

None of Sutcliffe's victims deserved what happened to them, but presumably if he hadn't been caught, Mike would now be complaining on behalf of the non-prostitute victims being 'lumped in with these other women' who were prostitutes.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

Hi,
Mary Kelly rarely wore a hat, so it is reported, but she did on the eve of the 8th, how else would Mrs Prater have known , for the item in question was not left until that very day by Mrs Harvey, who is reported to have remarked ''I am leaving my bonnet'' to the deceased .
One could assume that she was out to impress that night, she was seen with a well dressed man between 9-11 and is it not a coincidence that just a few hours later she was seen with a man of smart attire,?[ Mr A].

Or, one could speculate it was drizzly that night, and she didn't want to get her hair wet, and wanted to keep rain off her face.

From other reports, she was very proud of her hair, and that may be why she didn't wear a hat. A lot of women puffed their hair up in front, then used a hat to hide the fact that the hair in front was it. If MJK had enough hair to style it in a way that covered her whole head, she may have wanted to show it off, but she probably still wanted to keep it dry.

Also, she apparently was relatively tall for a woman. If she wore a hat typical for the period, it may have made her look taller than the men she was with.

Whoever killed her judged that she had somehow deserved her fate.

Cripes, I'm not sure I'd even go that far. He just thought that his jollies were more important than her life. If her took her soliciting, or apparent soliciting into account at all, it probably was just 1) there was no man to punch him for propositioning the woman he was with; 2) he had an easy opening line; 3) she'd go into the shadows with him; 4) if her financial situation was that dire, she probably didn't have family who were going to press the police to find her killer.

I don't think the morality of prostitution, or fornication, or whatever, entered into it.

If he were killing prostitutes to make a moral point, I think he would execute them, not mutilate them, and he would pick pros (women who worked in brothels, or who had regular clientele, and were known and immediately recognizable as representatives of their profession), not occasional prostitutes, about whom there would be some debate, which apparently there was even at the time, regarding at least Eddowes.

Unbelievable. In trying to elevate Stride above 'these other women' you merely discard them as so much rubbish.

Reminds me of that who Kimberly Bergalis debacle, and the debate over "innocent" victims of AIDS.

[Abby Normal]

I dont think Stride was solicitating that night. The evidence and circumstances seem to point she was with one man, lets call him peaked cap man, at least from witness Marshall on. Given that she had recently broken up with Kidney, seems to me if she was solicitating for anything, it was for a new boyfriend. Perhaps she even received some drinks (witnesses Best and Gardener-but they got the hat wrong) and the flower from him. Unfortunately for Stride, though, her new man was the ripper.

[Bridewell]

Great post Colin and very informative!

I know it isn't statistics/probability but I have also been struck by another shall we say pattern:

Martha Tabram-Aug 7 (beginning of month)
Polly Nichols- Aug 31 (end of Month)
Annie Chapman- Sep 8 (beginning month)
Stride/eddowes- Sep 30 (end of month)
Mary kelly- Nov 9 (beginning of month)

They are all murdered in a pattern on weekends or holidays in the beginning or end of the month. Now of course this could just be a coincidence but IMHO not only does it point to the murderer being employed but also perhaps that the pattern also links them to the same killer.

Now of course this pattern begs the question:
What type of employment in 1888 London might perhaps prevent a killer from killing on weekends (or at any time) in the middle of the month, either because it takes one out of town and/or has one working on middle of the month weekends?

Shift work of some kind would be a possibility.

[Bridewell]

A Matter of Perception

Hi Caz,

This thread wonders about a woman dressed nicely with accoutrements more in keeping with a social plan for the evening than a "work for doss" plan.... yet because she is lumped in with these other women we get to make all kinds of assumptions as to why she was there. Including the one that irks me the most,..that despite any evidence validating the claim, she was soliciting at the time.

Best regards

Michael,

Your argument here seems to be that Stride wasn't soliciting for the purposes of prostitution and therefore cannot be bracketed with victims of the 'unfortunate' class. Yet surely, if we are looking at her killer, what matters is not what she was doing, but what, in the eyes of her killer, she appeared to be doing? She could have been waiting for a boyfriend and yet perceived, by an observer, to be doing something else. We know she was loitering. We don't know why.

[Bridewell]

I would go further, and say that if it weren't for the "down on whores" line in one of the letters which we are nonetheless sure was a hoax, we wouldn't assume that any Ripper victim must have been soliciting.

That the letter was a hoax is a possibility, arguably a probability, but a certainty it is not. I don't understand the argument which says that the "Dear Boss" letter must be a hoax because the investigators at the time believed it so to be, but then decrees that Stride cannot be a Ripper murder despite what the police thought at the time. It doesn't strike me as a consistent line of argument. Either you place weight on contemporary police opinion or you don't, surely?